-->
@Athias
Have you decided on your response to my grandparents' attempt? (I told them about it, and they're waiting for you.)
is a turkey-baster involved ?
What is a man or woman?
Posts
Total:
185
-->
@Athias
how can you pretend to assign a "role" to someone who never participates in that "role" ?
also,
not every human "attempts reproduction"
-->
@3RU7AL
is a turkey-baster involved ?
Nah, they're old school. They barely look at each other during (at least, that's what I've gleaned from my grandfather's reports, which I get biweekly.)
how can you pretend to assign a "role" to someone who never participates in that "role" ?also,not every human "attempts reproduction"
How am I "pretending"? Have I confused or manipulated the descriptions of "men" and "women" in a manner contrary to accepted standards or norms? While not every human being has sex, or has a sex to reproduce, their "sex" is typically characterized by their roles in reproduction--whether they participate in reproduction or not. That's the reason for my example with my grandparents. Even if they don't attempt to reproduce, or they're past an age where they're capable of successfully reproducing, merely mentioning "grandfather" and "grandmother" is tacit information of who would inseminate and who would gestate. And since they have successfully reproduced, one would be hard-pressed to confuse which one was the "adult male" and which was one was the "adult female."
-->
@3RU7AL
it can't be "irrelevant", since it is EXPLICITLY the key point of this entire discussion."up to a doctor" you say ?appeal-to-authority much ?
I mean if a child has a penis and that’s it and a doctor says the child is a girl, I wouldn’t agree with the doctor. If it’s arbitrary, then I would agree with the doctor’s assessment. If I disagreed with it, I’d get a second or third opinion.
-->
@Athias
How am I "pretending"? Have I confused or manipulated the descriptions of "men" and "women" in a manner contrary to accepted standards or norms?
my question is specifically regarding (someone who never participates in that "role")
why do you feel compelled to assign "reproductive roles" to the millions upon millions of people who don't ever reproduce ?
presumably your "grandparents" have reproduced at some point, and thus have presumably adopted (if not fully embraced) the "role"
and beyond that,
why on god's green earth, would anyone (other than perhaps a medical practitioner) actually NEED to know which of your "grandparents" is XY and which is XX ??
does the state need to know this information ?
do my co-workers need to know this information ?
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
-->
@ILikePie5
If it’s arbitrary, then I would agree with the doctor’s assessment.
the movie "boy's don't cry" is based on the true story of a child that was born with ambiguous genitalia
the "doctor" asks the parents if they'd like to choose one over the other, and in this particular case, (on the "doctor's recommendation" they clipped off the malformed boy bits and decided to go with "it's a girl !!!!!!!"
however, when the infant had grown into an adolescent, they chose a boy name for themself and dressed as a boy
in other words, the "doctor" made a poorly-informed "recommendation"
-->
@3RU7AL
my question is specifically regarding (someone who never participates in that "role")why do you feel compelled to assign "reproductive roles" to the millions upon millions of people who don't ever reproduce ?
Because of the billions upon billions who do reproduce and have reproduced. It's language which serves to standardize. And it doesn't necessarily exclude those who don't reproduce. It's more so, in a given situation where one were to reproduce, one's role would be... So sterile men, and barren women, women who've received hysterectomies, or men who've received vasectomies, dismembered, castrated, etc. would still be "men" and "women" because despite their incapacity to carry out a successful reproduction, their roles in reproduction under conditions absent of such aberrations would still be the same--though, it suffices to state that standards and norms have presented qualifications--i.e. "sterile" and "barren."
presumably your "grandparents" have reproduced at some point, and thus have presumably adopted (if not fully embraced) the "role"
They had no choice in the matter. They had a choice in having sex. They had a choice in deciding whether to reproduce. But the "role" is dictated by the function of human reproduction. That is, my grandfather could not have adopted "to gestate" and my grandmother could not have adopted to "inseminate" especially in service to a successful reproduction.
and beyond that,why on god's green earth, would anyone (other than perhaps a medical practitioner) actually NEED to know which of your "grandparents" is XY and which is XX ??
Need to know? I suppose no one really needs to know. But one would know if I referenced them as my "grandfather" and "grandmother" as opposed to my "grandparents."
does the state need to know this information ?
No.
do my co-workers need to know this information ?
No.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
I agree.
-->
@Athias
would still be "men" and "women" because despite their incapacity
iff they were "normal"
ok, so, there are no "beautiful and unique snowflakes" ?
-->
@Athias
and my grandmother could not have adopted to "inseminate"
cloning technology
-->
@Athias
does the state need to know this information ?No.do my co-workers need to know this information ?No.It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.I agree.
ok, that's the important bit
we seem to have identified an ontological disagreement
you seem to believe that all mammals are somehow innately and fundamentally categorized as "male" and "female" and anything that either can't or won't reproduce is a malfunction of either "male" or "female" and some medical examination should presumably be made to figure out which is which (for what purpose is a complete mystery)
on the other hand,
i believe what someone looks like naked and or their preferred reproductive function (if any) is absolutely none of my business and if someone wants to be called "a man" then that's what i'll call them and if someone wants to be called "a woman" then that's what i'll call them AND if someone wants to be called anything else, they're going to have to let me know.
each person gets to choose their pronouns as an extension of their name
telling someone they are choosing the "wrong" pronoun is like telling someone they're pronouncing their own name incorrectly and you somehow know better.
anyway, i'm not offended by someone who wants to be "a man" or someone who wants to be "a woman" or anything else, (i'm certainly not going to check for myself) and contrary to what the internet wants you to think, they don't usually call the cops if you somehow guess "incorrectly"
-->
@3RU7AL
iff they were "normal"
Yes.
ok, so, there are no "beautiful and unique snowflakes" ?
There are. The distinction I outlined earlier is meant neither to bolster nor condemn an individual's quality or value. My understanding of reproduction merely affords the creation of these distinction merely along the lines of how one's sex characterizes one's role in reproduction. It bears no more value to me than that.
cloning technology
As easy as it would be for me to shoot down the notion of human cloning, and its success, I suspect you and I both know that there's a lot information on the matter that hasn't been subjected to either public awareness, or public acceptance. So touche. Technology will eventually compel us to eventually revisit our accepted notions and standards.
-->
@3RU7AL
we seem to have identified an ontological disagreementyou seem to believe that all mammals are somehow innately and fundamentally categorized as "male" and "female" and anything that either can't or won't reproduce is a malfunction of either "male" or "female" and some medical examination should presumably be made to figure out which is which (for what purpose is a complete mystery)on the other hand,
Not at all. Given that we don't categorize all mammals into "men" and "women," the distinction I outlined is strictly for adult human males and adult human females.
i believe what someone looks like naked and or their preferred reproductive function (if any) is absolutely none of my business and if someone wants to be called "a man" then that's what i'll call them and if someone wants to be called "a woman" then that's what i'll call them AND if someone wants to be called anything else, they're going to have to let me know.
I can respect that. But that does not mean that the standard on which the descriptions "man" and "woman"are based is necessarily subject to individuation. Of course, standards don't have to matter in individual interactions. And I would agree that what one looks like naked or how they express themselves sexually is a private matter. And I would likely indulge anyone who prefers to be referred to in a particular manner, despite my not feeling obligated.
each person gets to choose their pronouns as an extension of their name
I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. I would state that each person who participates in an interaction or relationship with someone else can dictate the terms in which they are willing to continue said interaction or relationship. So for example, if I were to state: "from now on, I wish to be referred to as 'she' rather than a 'he,'" that is my prerogative, just as it would be your prerogative to state: "Screw you, I refuse to acknowledge you as a 'she.'" Of course, we'd subsequently decide whether we'd continue or discontinue our interaction or relationship if pronouns are a deal-breaker.
telling someone they are choosing the "wrong" pronoun is like telling someone they're pronouncing their own name incorrectly and you somehow know better.
I disagree. We'd first have to determine "wrong" by which metric. If one maintains the description of men and women I outlined earlier, then telling someone they've chosen the "wrong" pronoun if the pronoun is inconsistent with the description they've maintained isn't necessarily a show of "one knows better," (or maybe it is?,) given that subjective and objective pronouns like, "he, she, him, her" refer to one's sex. Though perhaps, it would be nuanced to replace "wrong" with "inconsistent." But as I said earlier, individual interactions and relationships don't have to accept or acknowledge accepted standards or norms. Is it "wrong" morally/personally? Not in the very least.
anyway, i'm not offended by someone who wants to be "a man" or someone who wants to be "a woman" or anything else, (i'm certainly not going to check for myself) and contrary to what the internet wants you to think, they don't usually call the cops if you somehow guess "incorrectly"
Such a thing would be impractical to police.
-->
@Athias
Pardon me:
Ok..... I pardon you, tho I'm not sure what your wanting a pardon for.
What does any of this have to do with what I stated?
Icing and candles on your cake. Sorry if you dont like icing on your cake. Some of us do. If your looking for debate, 3ru has lit those candles of debate on your cake, if you want to go there. Good luck.
-->
@3RU7AL
Basically, into three separate lists....Which can then be sub-categorized, because we're good at that.
Rather than.......Basically into two separate lists, which are then sub-categorized, causing much confusion....Because we are good at that too..
-->
@Athias
given that subjective and objective pronouns like, "he, she, him, her" refer to one's sex.
which between most people (who are not intimately involved) would be strictly beyond their respective epistemological limits
most people believe they can easily spot "a man" or "a woman" but this delusion is mostly a function of sample bias and a lack of disconfirmation
it's exactly like the people who say, "i can always spot a toupee, because all toupees are ugly and obvious" not realizing that they've likely encountered some number of "good toupees" which they've personally failed to identify
for example,
What is a man and woman?
Tradesecret?
-->
@3RU7AL
which between most people (who are not intimately involved) would be strictly beyond their respective epistemological limitsmost people believe they can easily spot "a man" or "a woman" but this delusion is mostly a function of sample bias and a lack of disconfirmationit's exactly like the people who say, "i can always spot a toupee, because all toupees are ugly and obvious" not realizing that they've likely encountered some number of "good toupees" which they've personally failed to identifyfor example,
While I concede that relying strictly on physical and cultural traits may not be entirely accurate, I wouldn't call using them in identification of sex a "delusion" because the sample bias is unavoidable--there'd still be less a margin of error by going with one's presumption.
-->
@Athias
there'd still be less a margin of error by going with one's presumption.
of course,
but if that individual makes their pro-noun-preference known-now
i will not presume to tell them they are "wrong" and or "inconsistent"
and i will comply, exactly as i generally do when someone points out that i have unintentionally mispronounced their name
-->
@3RU7AL
of course,but if that individual makes their pro-noun-preference known-nowi will not presume to tell them they are "wrong" and or "inconsistent"and i will comply, exactly as i generally do when someone points out that i have unintentionally mispronounced their name
I'd probably be tempted to do so iff that relationship does not matter to me--and even then, I'd likely just be polite and let it go.
-->
@3RU7AL
Pro-noun.....Another word hijacked by sexual variantists, and rightly or wrongly redefined and submitted to and accepted by, lexicographical officialdom
Nonetheless an internal electro-chemical response converted to sound waves, received and converted back to electro-chemical data.
Or maybe represented in some other form of symbolic narrative.
Turkey basters a go-go.
Though messier more traditional methods of fluid exchange are still available.
-->
@zedvictor4
Another word hijacked by sexual variantists
who owns words ?
-->
@TheMorningsStar
What if they have both sets of external sex organs but neither is functioning? Are they neither a man or a woman?
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s irrelevant, and frankly up to a doctor to designate. Is it possible to have 6 fingers on a hand? Yes. But do we say that humans have 6 fingers on a hand. No.
I don't understand the corollary here.
-->
@zedvictor4
Just as there will be other types of developmental anomalies.
People. There will be different kinds of people.
-->
@Athias
Men are adult males whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as insemination.Women are adult females whose role in reproduction is delineated primarily as gestation.It's always been that clear-cut to me.
There are many adults who do not have a reproductive role at all. This seems like an inconclusive standard. It doesn't include all humans.
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't understand the corollary here.
The point is there are only 2 sexes. Obviously it’s possible for there to be an exception, but generally, we say that humans are either male or female. And then there’s gender. Dumbest innovation of society
-->
@ILikePie5
Its actually more of a spectrum than a binary even biologically speaking.
-->
@secularmerlin
There are many adults who do not have a reproductive role at all.
What is human reproduction? And what do the terms, "male" and "female" designate?
This seems like an inconclusive standard.
Seem is not an argument.
It doesn't include all humans.
The subject matter selects for age in its reference to "men and women" and not just "males and females." So yes, all humans wouldn't be included.
-->
@secularmerlin
Its actually more of a spectrum than a binary even biologically speaking.
No, actually it isn't. "Binary" is often misunderstood. A binary consists of two elements and/or any combination of the two. So even if we were to consider rare examples where a person has both genitalia, that would still meet the description of a two-sex binary.
-->
@Athias
What is human reproduction? And what do the terms, "male" and "female" designate?
Biological reproduction is the replication of organisms by whatever means that is accomplished the terms male and female denote cchromosome differences. Persons with Male chromosomes as a general rule possess female chromosomes as well.
No, actually it isn't. "Binary" is often misunderstood. A binary consists of two elements and/or any combination of the two. So even if we were to consider rare examples where a person has both genitalia, that would still meet the description of a two-sex binary.
It isn't EITHER male or female but rather some COMBINATION of male and female. In this case how do we decide how female one must be before they are a woman?